If you are inclined to believe the president, we will be in Iraq, in his words “as long as necessary, and not a day longer.” Members of the Bush administration, including the president, have been at pains to dispel any notion that they have plans for a permanent military presence in Iraq. On April 13, 2004, President Bush said, “As… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (75)Page 1 of 1 pagesIt should never have been stated that we will make Iraq into a democracy. George W’s father once announced, “I don’t have the vision thing.” I suspect W’s vision is programmable. While turning a totalitarian country into a free and democratic one is a laudable goal, this test is being run in the wrong test tube.
The War on Terror is not a matter of establishing the “right form of government” and not a simple Christian/Muslim conflict.
The radical Muslims don’t see nations which include religious categories — they see a religion which includes national categories.
Our problem is not Iraqis, Iranians, etc. It is only the extreme fundamentalist Muslims who see capitalism as decadent and a threat to their way of life. They don’t differentiate between Christians, Jews and Muslims. For them it is between their form of Islam and everyone else.
Just as the Bosnian centuries old hatreds between Serbs and Croats was stifled under Tito and then resurfaced, Saddam’s regime kept atrocities as their own turf. Now old scores have been freed to be settled.
The problems in these two areas are similar and if the west pulls out of either the strongest will slaughter the weak.
You could say we are say we are caught between Iraq and a hard place. (Sorry about that.)
Posted by whattheheck on Sep 29, 2005 at 8:44 AM Bush : “as long as necessary, and not a day longer.”
The cynic in me says he means until all the oil is pumped out. Or until the next world war is over. Or maybe it will always be necessary.
Rumsfeld : ”We have no intention, at the present time, of putting permanent bases in Iraq.”
The cynic in me says he means the permanent bases will be in Kurdistan or Shiastan (any guesses on what they will call the southern region?) protecting the oil, after the civil war and partitioning of the country. Or maybe when the sock puppet government in Iraq asks for the permanent bases because their American masters tell them to.
Posted by David in Canada on Sep 29, 2005 at 5:50 PM Hi WTH, Rabbit likes the first part of what you are saying a lot. Was feeling warm in the toes, but then we get a little wobbly, and Rabbit would respectfully like to show why he thinks this.
“The radical Muslims don’t see nations which include religious categories — they see a religion which includes national categories”
...
The Radical Americans don’t see Nations which include religious and political categories - they see a Nation which represents a Religious category. .......If that comparison does not stop you in your tracks WTH, back up and examine the legitimacy of our separate statements. Radical Muslims who may have been involved in certain Terrorist Attacks on our countries do not represent the countries from which they spring any more than Robertson represents America. Yet just as Radical Muslim Clerics represent the feelings of “some” albeit a small minority of those countries people, so does Robertson represent the feelings of some of America. Should America be attacked for not arresting Robertson and handing him over to countries who are even now demanding he be brought to account for breaking the very laws authored by the USA?
..
Come on WTH Rabbit knows you are not a Scorp, a Wolf or a Jay Cline. Just take the time to look at these guys, arguing essentially the same things as you when it comes to Muslims, Iraq, 911 and the WOT. You are the only one who is capable of rising above the mindset you have inherited. Respectfully WTH check out how these guys stack up, and ask yourself does my argument differ in any meaningful way from Jay Cline’s for example.
...
Again if you are thoughtful as well as reasonable, you may find the comparison an eye opener, please do. We need you to see past the small hurdle of misunderstanding which has been generated via a wholly compliant media and blatant thuggish politics. You know the MSM is worse than useless for reporting the truth, don’t you? You have seen how they treat this Emperor who has no clothes? Even yet the worst they can manage to say is that his clothes are not liking as fine as they once did. He has no clothes and you are seeing it, so what else is that wholly whored media withholding or just plain lying about?
...
You have the facilities to see, use them WTH, please.When you say:
.
“Our problem is not Iraqis, Iranians, etc. It is only the extreme fundamentalist Muslims who see capitalism as decadent and a threat to their way of life”
.......................You are only saying the truth. But why then are we attacking entire countries who were anathema to Extreme Fundamenatlists. Especially when the end result is and was always predicted to be an enormous upsurge in Fundamnetalsit thinking?
....
Is there any sense to this WTH?
..
What The Heck are you doing arguing in favour of a completely untenable position?
..
Rabbit says >>>>>>>>>>>>.....STOP......LOOK.......LISTEN N..........
Posted by GhostRabbit on Sep 29, 2005 at 9:49 PM BTW Jay is at the God Squad, and Wolf at Dialogue. Check them out and see if you want to keep sharing opinions with these guys. Never mind that you can express yourself more clearly and have a better explanation as to how the dots join, are your opinions on some things any more substantial than theirs?
..
It is a VERY good question, WTH.
..
If Rabbit saw the man with the exterminators Van coming he would look to his nearest companions just to ensure they were not all Rats, we don’t look that much different to the exterminator, and it might not be a good idea to be in this spot after all. Embarrassing at the least................................^^..........................
Posted by GhostRabbit on Sep 29, 2005 at 9:58 PM “You could say we are say we are caught between Iraq and a hard place.”
......
The pun is fun and forgiven, but the Hard place is one of own making still.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Sep 30, 2005 at 2:19 AM Rabbit —
”Should America be attacked for not arresting Robertson and handing him over to countries who are even now demanding he be brought to account for breaking the very laws authored by the USA?”No, it should not. Robertson is an idiot with MSM coverage just as is half of Hollywood, Jesse Jackson, and anyone else they can use to boost ratings. However, in this country we still have the Constitutional freedom to say (and not act on) stupid things.
Rabbit —
”...why then are we attacking entire countries who were anathema to Extreme Fundamentalists”I am open to the possibility there can easily be WMD which was in Saddam’s sandbox. You may recall that prior to the invasion of Iraq, many countries were believers — including France, Germany and enough UN members to vote for Resolution 1441. I do not believe Bush lied (he may have been lied to). If I had been responsible for hundreds of millions of lives (including my own family) I would have acted sooner than take a chance on another attack. It was accepted Saddam used nerve gas on the Kurds.
Remember Colin Powell holding up a small vial at the UN? My military service in a chemical unit taught me what a drop of Sarin gas inhaled or on the skin is capable of doing. Pretty easy to hide enough to wipe out a whole country. The same is true of biological agents.
We did not attack during the decades of attacks previous to the attack on 9/11. I’m in favor of preemptive attacks on any and all known terrorist training camps and the governments which support them. Had we done it sooner they may have been deterred.
If we don’t continue and we are attacked using chemical, biological or nuclear devices — I fear there could be massive retaliation which would make prior wars seem like child’s play.
Posted by whattheheck on Sep 30, 2005 at 7:03 AM WTH
“However, in this country we still have the Constitutional freedom to say (and not act on) stupid things.”
....
The Muslim Clerics who spout fundmentalist crap are no different WTH the situation is the same.The Fundy cleric spouts hate, a few of his followers cheer and the country says don’t worry about it most of us are not that stupid. That is what happens WTH. Just like in America. The difference is that America starts demanding the cleric be handed over, then they call for sanctions against the luckless country who has such a dimwitted cleric in its borders. The USA has been known to engage in acts of war against such countries in fact.
None of this is justified unless you are saying that American Fundys are not as dangerous.
That is insanity. The American Fundamentalists are baying for Muslim Blood and all Muslim Nations are to be slaughtered, men, women and Children. Don’t tell me I’m exxagerating, I happen to be very familiar with these fundamentalist Christians. You and I are used to the blood and sacrificial images of Christianity, look in the book of folly, just as the Muslims are used to the more gruesome images presented in their book of folly. That doesn’t make the whole country terrorist any more than Christians and there are plenty more like Robertson make us all terroists.
The difference is that since your actual Governbment did attack a whole country you are as such a genuine Terrorist Nation. That is a first I think.Ther is a big difference between a group of radicals and a whole country and WTH it is time you saw it, the hypocrisy is not becoming.
WTH you need to stop turning to historical examples to illustrate what are actual on the ground events today.
Many countries were believers in Iraqi WMDs WTH because the USA and Britain provided false intelligence to that effect. Remember that one?
Please don’t backslide on us now. You do know that the intelligence was false? It is history even though it is being ignored like the PINK Elephant in the living room. Fact is there are so many such Elephants in here that it is lost in the crowd probably.Whether or not Saddam had WMDS is proven to have been known to be a lie when it was told. That is all there is to that WTH the issue of what was believed at the time is dead. The downing street memos were the first proof of that but there has been much more, so please stop using the reference. As a second string on the bow of lies, it lasted a while but it is kaput, it never was and nobody pretends so outside of inner circle Repugs anymore. Don’t go there again.
WTH whether or not you believe Bush lied, he did. The reports are out, quite a few people have now confirmed that BUsh et al lied deliberately , knowing ly and they even then changed the lies and told new ones with the same assurances which were also PROVEN to be lies.
If you cannot believe Bush lied you are preffering to believe that numerous other people on both sides of the Atlantic lied, to their own detriment sometimes and that a great deal of complex conspiracy has gone into proividing false documents to make Bush and JUNTA look bad. WTH are you saying that everyone else is lying, Bush is telling the truth? If so please specify which time he was telling the truth, because his story has changed a few times.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Sep 30, 2005 at 9:05 AM Saddam used the nerve gas provided to him by the USA on the Kurds and he used co-ordinates supplied to him by the USA to target those weapons against Kurds and Iranians. At the time he was doing this he was best friends of the USA and all these things were being protested by Rabbit and others, where were you?
Since all of Saddams worst acts were done while he was USA close friend, don’t you think you have surrendered the right to claim any moral high ground on it’s behalf? There is no point in raising another incident to counter this, it is what happened and nothing will change this bit of history. When George Galloway rightly called the same facts in his defence against false charges levelled by your administration, they were as mystified by the significance as you hopefully will not be.
You cannot allow your small mate to beat up some helpless person, even encourage it and then say that you had nothing to do with it, at least if you want any respect.
The small vial held up by Colin Powell means?
WTH are you seriously telling us that Colin Powell holding up a small vial somehow justifies attacking a sovereign nation who had nver attacked the USA or threatened to do so?
Come off it man what are you trying to sell here? So the thought of sarin gas scared you?
Whoopee Do, and why does that mean somebody has to get attacked again?Dude let me state again, there was no reason to believe that IRAQ had WMDs prior to invasion. None. The UN weapons inspectors had not found any evidence, none was ever found and that is how it stands today. Sooner or later you guys are going to have to let go of those security blankets and come out in the real world.
The honest truth is you have no other excuse to be in Iraq, now that all precious reasons have turned out to be lies. Not mistakes, lies.
When Bush gets indited and is tried for some at least of the things which are coming home to roost as we speak, what are you going to be telling yourself I wonder.
Don’t try and pretend that you were tricked. The evidence has been in front of you for a long time and you are just not looking at it.
The fact is WTH GEORGE BUSH has trashed the USA, its reputation, its economy, its military and its environment. He has no redeeming features of his entire term in office or in fact in his entire life. The man is the worst human being who ever entered the public spotlight. Rabbit ans many others like him would never turn to such adjectives as EVIL and many of the other words I use unless there was a very solid reason.
Try and answer my questions to yourself, before you just reply with some other idea.
Please try and re-read the simple logic Rabbit is not seeing any need to complicate such simple things as these. Facts are Facts and opinions are not worth anything if they have no valid facts.
I am of the opinion that the invasion of Iraq was wrong, it was done for no acceptable reason which has stood the test, at the time given or especially since.
The Facts are that no reason has been shown to be good enough. It is up to you to prove there was a good enough reason. Not merely say there was, FACTS have the identifying feature that they can be proven.
It is embarrassing saying these things to WTH, for Rabbit believes he understands, Facts and Opinions are separate.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Sep 30, 2005 at 9:55 AM WTH this is just sheer Paranoic lunacy…
“We did not attack during the decades of attacks previous to the attack on 9/11. I’m in favor of preemptive attacks on any and all known terrorist training camps and the governments which support them.”
..
What decades of attacks? minor bombings here and there by various small factions. Some of whom are religious nuts and some of whom have secular grievances with the USA which you will not ever admit. These attacks were not by any country or even centrally controlled organisation.911 is not confirmed as is known the official Conspiracy Theory was never worth the paper it was written on an what is known so far is enough to make a complete mockery of the idea that the attacks on Iraq were in anyway justified by 911. You are off the planet to suggest that atacking the countries you have is making the world a safer place, do we need to examine the massive recruiting to extremists which is directly attributable to the attacks? Do we need to look at the complete cock up which is bringing the worst instability the potentially volatile Middle East has seen?
You have not been attacking “known” terrorist training camps or countries which support them If you were you would be attacking Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. It is well know that Pakistan is essential to movements and even training facilities for the extremists you are so terrified of. Kind of makes the whole stupid argument deader than dead for you. WTH please stop repeating things you believe in unless you can prove you have areason to believe it.
Let me tell you one thing WTH which I cannot prove but which I would stake my life on.
If you continue on your current course of denial and brutality against the people of the Middle East then “there WILL be massive retaliation which would make prior wars seem like child’s play” this was not ever going to happen except in the minds of a few religious nut jobs among the Judeo/Chritian/Islamic factions.
By allowing the madness of your own Fundamnetalists to become foreign policy you are bringing this upon not only yourselves but the whole planet.
If you cannot be stopped then at least know we blame you fairly and squarely. Nobody except a minority of you own country agrees with your lies anymore and that number is dwindling rapidly. Do you feel like things are going to turn around for you any day soon? or are you clinging to the railing of a sinking ship?
Sadly most of what you are saying are FACTS are not. The things you are saying are familiar to us, we have heard all the news reports too. But we have also investigated and gotten all the news which is not reported or which gets lost in amongst the Michael Jackson trials and such.
You need to let go of the faith based argument now WTH.
The samll loss of pride which will follow a checking of your so called FACTS, will be much better than looking like an Idiot.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Sep 30, 2005 at 9:55 AM Rabbit,
Sounds as though you equate Saddam’s Iraq and the U.S. “None of this is justified unless you are saying that American Fundys are not as dangerous.”
Well, that’s your privilege.
But what is the ratio of people wanting to be Iraqi citizens vs U.S.? Kind of makes it appear as though most people see a great difference in the two.
For some reason you seem to think I am looking for your approval —”Please don’t backslide on us now.” And… “Don’t go there again.”
As for “You do know that the intelligence was false?” You claim to “know” and awful lot. It must be comforting to be so sure of the “facts” which you are accepting. You “know” that Bush lied. You “know” when a certain number of people agree on something that they are not lying.
I suppose you can say anything which has already happened is “history”.
“WTH you need to stop turning to historical examples to illustrate what are actual on the ground events today.”
The attacks on our embassies, the Marines in Lebanon, on our ship (the USS Cole), the 1993 attack on the Trade Center are of course history. Had I been President I would have attacked any and all terrorist training camps where ever they might have been — to hell with world opinion.
Posted by whattheheck on Sep 30, 2005 at 10:13 AM whattheheck, your ignorance is typical of the American people. Do not attempt to denounce Rabbit’s claims without proving your own. Not only does Rabbit “know” Bush lied, so does most of America and the world. Open your eyes and you can see these lies. I can’t believe you claim to refute Rabbit’s claim of “knowing” Bush lied, the evidence is in the absence of any WMD’s. I suggest you research the Bush Administration’s lies before you try to claim they are telling the truth.
To stay on topic: Your main argument is that since Iraq could have launched chemical weapons against the US, a pre-emptive strike was the best option. Am I correct? Now, roll the facts around your head and think about it a second. The answer to prevent an attack on the US is to enter the territory and start blasting? No, occupation of Iraq wouldn’t stop a ballistic attack. The only answer I can give you is that you’re not researching this, and only giving in to your own jaded opinions.
“To hell with world opinion” is sadly the resounding sentiment of Americans that got us all into this mess.
Posted by Predator_Eagle on Sep 30, 2005 at 11:32 AM The reason some Iraqis wanted to move to America is because like many Americans they believed all the false propaganda which makes the USA out to be some sort of democratic and materialistic paradise of freedom.
It sounded pretty enticing to people who were living in countries which were struggling with many problems and some of which were of US creation.
The actual Fact is that these days there are far fewer people who want to become Americans, the interest fro moving to the uSA is drying up fast as the reality on the ground is becoming known. There are more than a few relatively undeveloped countries looking at the US people with pity now. You can go on believing you still own the best car on the block, we should all try to be proud of our homelands. Luckily Americans have had the sort of practice in patriotism that should make reasons for that pride beside the point so you should be able to keep having parades and falg ceremonies.
BTW WTH The USS cole, looks to have been Mossad, did you not know that even?
WTH you are not seriously asking for proof that Bush lied about the WMDs and Iraq? Can you actually be saying you don’t know this?
If by tomorrow you say you need me to give you sources to show that Bush lied about the WMDs then I will be happy to do so. But don’t just do the faith thing, WTH Rabbit is expecting great things from you. It will be a great blow to those of us who say you are not all worthless, some yet can still come around to reality. You have occasonally shown a reasoning skill, but it is as if it was rusty or not habitual.
WTH Rabbit can try and tell you something here but you are not going to like it. It is relatively easy for us to establish what we are saying, we actually do have well sourced facts for our opinions. Unless you have the same does it not seem to you that you may not be enjoying a level playing field?
If you can only spout opinions, with no more sourcing than you heard it on the news or read about it somewhere, while we can present relevant opinions and prove the FACTS upon which these are based, you are going to be eaten alive.
Don’t make us do this to you. You don’t have to join us but you should not fight unless you have a plan to win. It is a recognised military strategy, attack without any plans of how you intend to win, it has been done.
The result need not be an actual defeat if one is prepared to take a hammering and just exist in a state of losing, and denial about it. It has indeed been tried, it is the policy by which the War was launched on Iraq.You have argued for the policy so it makes sense I guess that you would adopt it as your own.. A Rabbit can only hope I guess.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Sep 30, 2005 at 1:11 PM “Rabbit is expecting great things from you.”
“WTH Rabbit can try and tell you something here but you are not going to like it.”
“Don’t make us do this to you.”
Do you have any concept of just how arrogant and pompous you sound?
Get a life.
Posted by whattheheck on Sep 30, 2005 at 2:07 PM Not at all WTH. Nobody who had an opinion worthy of respect; ie. based on sourced facts, ever called Rabbit such things. They still haven’t so Rabbit is still missing that concept.
Now when you can only repeat unprovable stories while being faced with provable evidence that the stories are wrong, have you any idea of how pathetic and desperate you sound?
If Rabbit is so pompous why does he bother to be pleasant to you when what you are saying is not really worthy of intelligent debate?
Anyway it doesn’t matter WTH because Rabbit is right and you are wrong and Rabbit can actually give sources for his Facts which help Rabbit form Opinions which are not only reasonable, but easily defended.
You still have nothing except a Faith based argument, yet you don’t even summon God to help you. You only have the faith without the reason, what makes you any different from idiots like Jay Cline or some religious nut job?
You have the same ‘opinions’, the same lack of ‘Actual’ FACTS to back them up and the same mentality that dares to presume that is enough and you own the moral highground.
Give a single example where you have made a point which would be acceptable to an impartial observer.
You are welcome to make one now, but before this nothing you have said but unsupported and challenged opinions.
Don’t come back and start pontificating please WTH, give us something to work with here, or for gods sake go and join the choir, and stop pretending you are a debater.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Sep 30, 2005 at 6:54 PM Why is it when others like Rabbit search your words for something substantial enough to discuss, you search our posts for some meaningless lines of prose which merely give tone and nuance?
Have you not got much experience debating with adults WTH? What is your problem with seeing an idea through from saying it, to illustrating it and then defending it with your mind and reason? Why do you avoid all but the most superficial treatment of issues and shy away into personal attacks when confronted with FACTS or a demand for some from you?
Posted by GhostRabbit on Sep 30, 2005 at 6:59 PM It seems to be escaping your notice too WTH every one of Rabbit’s posts to you contain specific questions, most relevant to the issue at hand, so where do you get off ignoring such basic courtesy?
Patience is a virtue and Rabbit who needs all the virtue he can get will be patient with you yet, WTH because you once showed power to reason. If you face the Rabbit questions like a man you might soon alter your opinion of Rabbit who actually is probably a Man you would not be ashamed to call friend.
If there was any less arrogant way of telling somebody he is dead wrong about some very important matters, Rabbit would use it.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Sep 30, 2005 at 7:33 PM Rep. Lee needs to address the leaders of her own party who are supporting the war such as Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi did not support the Woolsey resolution either. Rep. Lee had a chance to do the right thing when Kerry supported the war and she didn’t. She is hopelessly wedded to the corrupt democrat party.
Posted by citizensf on Oct 1, 2005 at 11:55 AM Reminding us that key people in the current administration authored in the mid-90s The Project for the New American Century (PNAC - available online, just search) puts Iraq in context. PNAC’s first 50-70 pages have plans for streamlining the military and modernizing it with machinery not boots on the ground (we saw how far that got us in Iraq) and, if you do a search for “Pearl Harbor”, you’ll find a chilling comment, something like all this will be hard to achieve and will take a long time, barring a new Pearl Harbor to galvanize Americans. Makes me wonder if the original intent of 9-11 was to knock off the radio tower of the WTC, galvanize Americans and neutralize noisy liberal NYers… but al qaeda escalated.
That would explain the strange minutes of indecision as Bush hesitated in his Goat book with the children. Two planes not just one? Hit the buildings seriously? Did something go wrong and maybe I should do something? Or am I just out of the loop and I should just keep on reading to the children as planned.
Posted by scribbler on Oct 1, 2005 at 9:28 PM About time someone mentioned PNAC, these Conservative clowns need to learn about that one. They keep saying how “They would never do such things” which the bastards already said they were going to do.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 2, 2005 at 6:03 AM whattheheck’s statement “The radical Muslims don’t see nations which include religious categories — they see a religion which includes national categories.” is not quite correct—it’s not the radicals only who see it that way. That Islam embraced all was a point of faith and pride for the earliest believers. That “all” included nations, cultures and intellectual and religious inquiry. The modern radicals, however, have no tolerance for such inquiry, but imagine a past, pure state in which inquiry was neither present nor necessary. One might also point out that radical _Muslims_ are not the only worshipers of a mythical purity.
Posted by SABX on Oct 2, 2005 at 9:27 AM I don’t have much to add to the general topic as Rabbit has articulated most of what I would say. I just wanted to applaud his restraint (though not his brevity). One point I did not see regarding the POTUS chronic habit of lying - I remember shaking my head in disbelief when he popped out on TV claiming that Saddam would not let the weapons inspectors in. They had actually been on the ground pretty much making the point there were no WMD’s. In fact, it was the US who told the weapons inspectors to leave… Guess it would have been hard to explain incinerated weapons inspectors at the beginning of the war.
As an aside, citizensf… your use of the language ‘the corrupt democrat party’ hints at your ideology or choice of talk radio hosts.
Posted by Krusty on Oct 2, 2005 at 9:04 PM What should be mentioned on the same matter, Krusty, is that exactly the same stunts are being duplicated in the instance of Iran.
.
The same scumbag trolls who were pusing the lies then are here pusing them today. Bush is a PIG but no less than many of his followers.
.
Rabbit too wishes he could be more brief, works at it.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 3, 2005 at 1:43 AM WTH is not a Troll, let there be no understanding, Rabbit never says this and does not want to be misunderstood BTW.
.
WTH won’t you look at those threads Rabbit mentioned? even if silently for now, think about it,........... Rabbit wants your soul........(For the good fight)
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 3, 2005 at 2:12 AM Krusty writes :
“ I remember shaking my head in disbelief when he popped out on TV claiming that Saddam would not let the weapons inspectors in. They had actually been on the ground pretty much making the point there were no WMD’s. In fact, it was the US who told the weapons inspectors to leave…”Yes. That was quite the lie. It was a sure sign the war was on. Ready, set, go. And Boosh is following the same script for Iran and Syria.
Boosh said :
“‘This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous.’
(Short pause)
“‘And having said that, all options are on the table.’
“Even the White House stenographers felt obliged to note the result:
‘(Laughter).’”
SICK !! very sick..
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 3, 2005 at 10:49 PM Hi ho,
I’m sorry,but the title of this article is quite misleading.We will not have a permanent occupation of Iraq.Eventually we will leave when the oil runs out.
The real question is which will end sooner the supply of oil,or America’s tolerance of what could be,ostensibly,a never ending war on"terrorism".
Still,I’m sure the Pentagon loves having a giant sandbox in which to play with their trucks and tanks.I only wish the rest of our troops weren’t made to play along with them too. Brrmm!Brrmm!Bang!Pow!Boom!Oh,by the way.I’ve heard the British have put George Orwell’s coffin on a set of bearings,
allowing him to turn over in his grave with greater ease.Goodness knows he needed that.
Posted by wwoods on Oct 4, 2005 at 6:16 AM Perhaps we could somehow rig up his and coffins of other such men of vision to generators and at least power the cemetary lights?
A few good paragraphs of Douglas Herman’s
“I get the feeling that our “master strategists” in this rogue republic—Rove, Rice, Perle, Wolfowitz, the PNAC crowd—rarely played Risk, or any other game for that matter. Instead they decided to align themselves with a couple of other upstart outlaw nations--England and Israel—to conquer the Middle East.
Only problem? Those damn Middle Easterners don’t want to be conquered. The Afghans weren’t sophisticated enough to know they were defeated, never having been defeated before. And so they fight on. Undefeated. The Iraqis too.
As for Iran, that nascent democracy (You can vote at the age of FIFTEEN in Iran), they’ve adamantly refused to be intimidated. Instead, like a good Risk player, Iran amassed a few armies of her own and added a couple of alliances. Allies with sizeable numbers of game tokens: China and Russia.”
http://www.strike-the-root.com/52/herman/herman16.html
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 5, 2005 at 8:14 PM Rabbit
Thanks for the link above. Was very good reading. Boom Boom, the drums of war. Getting louder.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 5, 2005 at 9:54 PM Long term does not necessarily equate to permanent. Before World War II, America had no bases in Germany. The bases that were built after WWII were there first to manage the reconstruction of Europe, and then to stop an anticipated Soviet assault on Europe.
Since the Fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the Fall of Soviet Communism, many, if not most of those bases have been decommissioned.
There is no reason to assume that the same won’t happen once the parallel and twin goals of democracy in the Middle East and the Defeat of Terrorism has been accomplished.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 6, 2005 at 3:19 PM As for Iran, that nascent democracy (You can vote at the age of FIFTEEN in Iran), they’ve adamantly refused to be intimidated.
Yeah, you can vote for whomever you want, as long as they have been vetted by the Mullahs first.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 6, 2005 at 3:24 PM Hi Jay
“Long Term” if you like. Nothing is permanent except God. Over on the “All for One, None for All” school choices thread you make a good case for parents being allowed to choose what is best for their children (and themselves).
Self determination is best.
The article states :
“ ... intense opposition to U.S. plans to establish long-term military bases in Iraq is one of the most passionate motivations behind the insurgency. There are many different strands to the violent resistance that plagues Iraq ... The one thing that unites these disparate elements is Iraqi (or broader pan-Arab) nationalism—resistance to what they see as a long-term project for imperial domination by the United States. Neutralizing this anti-imperial passion—by clearly stating that we do not intend to remain in Iraq indefinitely—is essential to winding down the insurgency. “If the Iraqi government held a country wide referendum asking the people, who they supposedly represent, if they wanted the Americans to stay or go, I wonder what the results might be?
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 6, 2005 at 4:20 PM Most countries have some vetting procedure for candidacy in elections. Some are just not as far along in the game as others. Iran is an emerging democracy. That is better than not a democracy at all.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 6, 2005 at 5:57 PM Back to Iraq. There is a difference between bases in a country and an occupation of a country.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 6, 2005 at 7:59 PM “Long Term” if you like. Nothing is permanent except God.
C’mon David. You are usually the voice of reason here, or at last due consideration. When someone differentiates between long term and permanent, they generally mean two different things.
Most countries have some vetting procedure for candidacy in elections.
David…
There is a difference between bases in a country and an occupation of a country
Yes, and in Germany and Japan the transition from occupation and basing was after a viable government was in place. Iraq is still going through its own version of constitutional congresses, as in, they are still constituting their government.
So yes, I have no problems calling US occupation forces in Iraq, occupation. No more than the Allied forces in Germany and Japan (and Italy) were occupational forces after the war.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 6, 2005 at 9:30 PM Correction:
(I keep telling myself to do a better job proofreading...)
You are usually the voice of reason here, or at least due consideration.
not
You are usually the voice of reason here, or at last due consideration.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 6, 2005 at 9:32 PM Jay
Permanent versus long term. Yes , there is a difference and I acknowledged it .. i.e .. “if you like”.
To quote the subtitle of this article :
“ No one disputes that the military bases are of a physically permanent character. The only question is whether Iraq will be under permanent U.S. military occupation “.It is good to see that you agree that it is an occupation. An occupation with a resistance or insurgency, depending on the perspective. Hopefully Iraq does make the transition. It will be making the best of a bad situation.
But that does not blot out this :
The USA and Britain used false evidence and demagogy to provide justification for an unprovoked and illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 6, 2005 at 10:39 PM Jay,
Do you agree that if the people of Iraq want the occupation to end that the Americans should leave?
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 6, 2005 at 10:43 PM David,
Ok, fair is fair.
The USA and Britain used incomplete evidence and persuasion to provide justification for an provoked and justified invasion and occupation of Iraq.
You’re right. It is all just semantics.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 7, 2005 at 5:48 AM The people of Iraq should have a right to say if they want American forces in Iraq and that right should be expected.
A recent Pew poll showed that over 70% of the Iraqi people want the American forces to stay.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 7, 2005 at 5:50 AM Jay
It is not just semantics.
Do you believe the invasion and occupation was justified?
What did Iraq do to provoke this invasion and occupation?
What international law allows for preemptive attacks?
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 7, 2005 at 7:30 AM WE will get out of iraq as soon as the people get fed up with this war. Just like viet nam.
Posted by brian28 on Oct 7, 2005 at 11:26 AM a new Gallup Poll taken Sept. 16-18 shows only 32 percent of the public approves of the war.”
67% of the American public disapproves of President Bush’s Iraq strategy. A whopping 40% of Republicans view the Iraq war as a bust, raising the specter of dissension within the party ranks. The Republicans could not derive any solace from a Harris poll demonstrating that Iraq was growing in political importance, with 41% of Americans viewing the war as their most important issue.
Posted by brian28 on Oct 7, 2005 at 11:44 AM The poll also reveals that the American public thinks Bush is trying to deceive them on the war: 57 percent say the president makes the Iraqi situation sound better than it really is. When they are asked to look back in hindsight, 49% of Americans say the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq, while two thirds think the war has not been worth its cost.
Posted by brian28 on Oct 7, 2005 at 11:47 AM Now as I full understand the phony “democratic” system of the U.S. I’m shocked. It is definitely not a democratic by all means. There is no control! And the outragoes power given to the president makes it look worse then old Sowjet Union. Any critizism coming from America regarding other governments are ridiculed and make me laugh.
Poor little Americans: cardboard house, no education, low paid jobs and no say what coorporate America does to them. Very sad!
Posted by brian28 on Oct 7, 2005 at 11:52 AM So, polls show Iraqi’s overwhelmingly support American troops in Iraq, but Americans don’t.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 7, 2005 at 12:36 PM And, to clarify this as well,
It is not just semantics.
Exactly, David. That was my point from the start when I asked you to be reasonable.
Do you believe the invasion and occupation was justified?<i>
Yes
<i>What did Iraq do to provoke this invasion and occupation?
1) invaded Kuwait
2) lost both wars, signed an internationally recognized and legally binding unconditional surrender
3) 12 years of thumbing his nose at UN Resolutions and that unconditional surrender
4) using WMD against his own people, killing 100,000s
5) brutally supressing the Shi’ite and Kurdish uprisings that followed the first war, expressly forbidden in that bothersome unconditional surrender, which has as much legal force as any treatyWhat international law allows for preemptive attacks?
UN Resolution explicitly requiring him to allow weapons inspectors back in or face the consequences, and Saddam’s repeated violations of that (darn it, there it is again!) unconditional surrender.
And (no, this is not semantics) it wasn’t preemptive. This was all started when Saddam got cocky and went too far invading Kuwait. The preemption was by Saddam.
9/11 changed the world, remember. During the first Iraqi War, Bush Sr. knew he couldn’t go all the way because of international politics. 9/11 changed all that.
9/11 wasn’t the only reason Saddam got his butt kicked a second time, but it did enable it.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 7, 2005 at 12:47 PM Re: What Arabs on the Street are saying:
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay_id=135776
”This past March, al-Jazeera broadcast a discussion with four leading Arab intellectuals on the results of an online survey about the “priorities of the Arab street.” While Palestine predictably placed first in the poll, with 27 percent, “reform” was a very close second with 26 percent, followed by human rights at 11 percent and poverty at 10 percent. (The U.S. occupation of Iraq, terrorism, and Islamic extremism all failed to clear the 10 percent threshold.) ”
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 7, 2005 at 2:56 PM But the Iraqis that want the Americans there today may not want them there tomorrow. Let’s wait and see.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 7, 2005 at 4:22 PM Jay
Always reasonable. Mostly.
I do not think the invasion was justified. I bet you figured that out by now.
The provocations you listed, while factual, do not, in my opinion, warrant the action that was taken.
Other nations thumb their noses at UN resolutions. Sectarian violence exists in other countries besides Iraq.
Many nations, some of them respected allies, voiced their disapproval saying that an invasion was unwarranted and called for continuing weapons inspections. The weapons inspectors were there doing there job and doing it well. Saddam was disarmed. No weapons of mass destruction have been found. The weapons inspectors were told to leave Iraq when an attack by the USA was imminent.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 7, 2005 at 5:07 PM Jay, Re: Re: What Arabs on the Street are saying:
That doesn’t surprise me at all. Arab’s are very reasonable people.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 7, 2005 at 6:40 PM Oops, that should read :
Arab’s are very reasonable people, mostly.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 7, 2005 at 7:54 PM David,
Yeah, you are right. When they vote us out of the country, it’ll definitely be put up or shut up for our stated intent.
I’ve no doubts to our response, but I’m no better a prognosticator than anyone else.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 8, 2005 at 12:21 PM The weapons inspectors were there doing there job and doing it well. Saddam was disarmed. No weapons of mass destruction have been found. The weapons inspectors were told to leave Iraq when an attack by the USA was imminent.
1) Weapons inspectors also complained that Saddam was playing shell games with them
2)none were found because Saddam wouldn’t let them do their job.
3) Now, when were the inspectors kicked out? Wasn’t Clinton President then? What was his battle plans?
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 8, 2005 at 12:32 PM November 8, 2002 - UN Security Council unanimously approves resolution 1441. New and improved waepons inspections on Iraq. Precise definitions of what constitutes a “material breach” of resolution. Iraq warned that violation of the resolution will bring “serious consequences” which the Security Council would determine.
November 18, 2002 - UNMOVIC resumed Iraq weapons inspections after almost 4 year absence.
January 28, 2003 - State of the Union address. Bush is ready to attack Iraq without a UN mandate. Never gets one either.
February 2003 - UNMOVIC weapons inspectors were doing their job, granted not an easy job with Saddam dragging his feet and playing games, in Iraq until sometime at the end February 2003. Maybe very early March too. They left when the war seemed imminent. Saddam did not force them out. In fact Iraq was still destroying weapons as ordered. UNMOVIC ordered destruction of Al Samoud 2 missiles by March 1, 2003. Iraq began destroying them on March 1, 2003.
February, March 2003 - Peace protests around the world.
March 17, 2003 - Diplomatic efforts cease. Bush gives Saddam an ultimatum to leave the country within 48 hours or else face an attack.
March 19, 2003 - War is on.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 8, 2005 at 3:04 PM Here is a good description of the prelude :
“ Prior to the invasion, the United States said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and that it must either give them all up or undergo a regime change. However, immediately prior to the invasion, the United States made a further demand that Saddam Hussein step down from power and vacate Iraq. Still later, the United States announced that even if Saddam Hussein abdicated and his government was changed, it would send in forces to verify disarmament and oversee the transition to a new government. Iraq variously claimed that it never had any WMD, or that it had gotten rid of them all (and asserted that it was thus in compliance with United States and United Nation demands).
Some said before the invasion that if Iraq were to prove credibly that it no longer had such capability, by allowing unfettered access to inspectors and permitting the destruction of WMD stocks and production facilities as they were found, the primary claimed justification for the proposed US invasion would vanish.
At the United Nations Security Council French and Russian Foreign Ministers Dominique de Villepin and Igor Ivanov garnered an unusual applause inside the chamber with their speeches against the war and for a continuation of the weapons inspections.
..cut and pasted from.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#UNMOVIC_search h_2003
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 8, 2005 at 3:09 PM November 18, 2002 - UNMOVIC resumed Iraq weapons inspections after almost 4 year absence.
4 years absence?? Let’s see, that would be.. borrow from the ‘0’… 1998?
Why were the inspectors AWOL from 1998 (when Clinton was President) to nearly 2003? And why did they wait to return until it was apparent that war was, if not imminent, then clearly very probable?
Could it be their being AWOL had more to do with suffering under Saddam’s pleasure? Could it be that, far from the inspectors being forced out because of war drums, that after four years they were brought in for a couple months by Saddam as a ploy to forestall American invasion plans, maybe with a little hostage taking in the works? Maybe they feared being hostages more than stuck in the middle of a war?
No, that sounds like a wild-eyed conspiracy theory. Couldn’t be....
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 8, 2005 at 3:18 PM David,
You make it sound like the 2003 Iraqi War just happened out of the blue. But in fact, the war drums, or at least the fear of war drums, were being sounded in the spring of 2002, after the successful Afghanistan War.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 8, 2005 at 3:22 PM Jay,
Yes, inspectors were in and out at various times. Why does it have to be a ploy or plot that Saddam allowed them back to forstall invasion plans? Could be yes, I know. But could have been an honest effort for peace too. Wild eyed for sure ... but my opinion is that it was a better answer than war.
If I made it seem like the 2003 Iraqi Invasion happened out of the blue it was not my intent. There was the usual lengthy build up with the appropriate diplomatic hand wringing as a prelude to be sure. I see the same script being followed with Iran right now. It’s a long drawn out show.
Jay,
You think that the War in Afghanistan was successful. Iraq too. Justified and successful. You are not alone in your opinion, and you have every right to it.
I think that war is not the answer.
I have pointed out things I find interesting and stated my opinion. If they do not work for you, that’s OK. I will not kill you. OK?
Just a little
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 8, 2005 at 5:09 PM War is the last action of a failed diplomacy.
It failed because Saddam was never serious about it.
Just as diplomacy ultimately failed with Hitler.
I think that war is sometimes the only answer. Hitler and Saddam come to mind, if only because it was the only “diplomacy” they understood. Chamberlain sincerely believed in Hitler’s sincerity as you apparently believe about Saddam’s sincerity. That isn’t meant to be a put down or a reflection on you, just on Saddam.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 9, 2005 at 1:41 PM Jay,
I don’t think that Hitler or Saddam were sincere in their “diplomacy”. War is all they understood.
I thank you for this opportunity to clarify myself. You allude to this possiblity with “apparently” and I alluded to the possibilty of Saddams diplomacy with “wild eyed”. Another attempt at good natured humor on my part.
I don’t think Bush is sincere in his “diplomacy” either.
War is all Bush understands.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 9, 2005 at 11:13 PM That isn’t meant to be a put down or a reflection on you, just on Bush.
Seriously. I mean that.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 9, 2005 at 11:15 PM Saddam didn’t make the war you idiot. It was your democracy which failed and made war by this definition. David you are wasting your time with this clown. He is a robot. If Jay ever gets around to getting an education he will learn that hitler was largely led/pushed into a war, he was little more than a pawn for others as it happened. He was a man, just like Shrub is a man. He is remembered as some kind of monster, for the same reasons which Bush has already claimed the title, MONSTER. This too has been among people who rarely see things in such extreme ways, yet soemtimes it just fits.
War was not being sought by Saddam Hussein, anymore than it is being sought by IRAN. The USA is the aggressor then as now.
By the way stop congratulating yourself on Afghanistan and David too had better check out the actual situation in Afghanistan is getting worse, has only been slowed down by the seasons as always and is back with a vengeance.
Nup, BOZO, you don’t have anything to boast about there either.
Everything you say, Jay, is a reflection on you. This is a tragedy for you and Rabbit is sorry for you, but you shall be wacked when seen, that is that. Until you grow or borrow a mind that works, you are a bug to be toyed with.
Rabbit won’t hurt you either.
Rabbit’s don’t kill things, but they can wack them once in while if the urge takes them.
Sorry to pirate your Moron there momentarily, David, he’s all yours again.
.......................................^^.......................
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 10, 2005 at 12:59 AM you can support the troops but not the war you dumb shits.you can be a christian and a democrate pull your head out and stop believing the carl rove, and bush bullshit the election is over start thinking for yourselves.
Posted by brian28 on Oct 11, 2005 at 7:59 AM Politicians tell us they acted in good faith on the road to war, and maybe they did, but that leaves a prickly question: who was so keen to prove that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat that they forged documents purporting to show that he was trying to buy 500 tons of uranium from Niger to develop nuclear weapons? The forgery was revealed to the Security Council by ElBaradei. That was not an intelligence error. It was a straightforward lie, an invention intended to mislead public opinion and help start a war.
Disappointingly for the neocons, the CIA sent Ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger to check the story: he reported that it was nonsense. When the story was repeated by Bush, Wilson went public. His wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame, was then outed by the White House. Hence Rove’s predicament
In the words of Robert Baer, a distinguished former CIA man, it was a “competing intelligence shop at the Pentagon"..."if you didn’t like the answer you’re getting from the CIA”. In short, bogus stories would get a second chance at the OSP
Posted by brian28 on Oct 11, 2005 at 10:44 AM http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/060705controlleddemolition.htm
Posted by brian28 on Oct 11, 2005 at 10:56 AM Brian,
Good points on the Niger/Iraq fabricated evidence. Not an intelligence error, despite some attempts to say failing to recognize it as a forgery is an intelligence failure. Someone fabricated it.
There is a discussion of 9/11 and controlled demolition taking place on the Reckoning with the God Squad thread.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 11, 2005 at 12:10 PM .. and I couldn’t get the URL you posted at October 11, 2005 at 11:56 AM to work. Even when I tried it without the space in controlled.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 11, 2005 at 11:52 PM .. if you can find it again maybe repost on the Reckoning with the God Squad thread.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 11, 2005 at 11:55 PM www.prisonplanet.com
http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html
Posted by brian28 on Oct 13, 2005 at 8:31 AM Listen to the collapse - mp3
What follows is a comparison with a bunch of MEKP and ANNM explosions, immediately followed again by the WTC sound recording. The sound and the effects of MEKP and ANNM are comparible to military explosives. If you want to see the movie, you’ll need to get the ‘why the towers fell’ film.
Listen to a comparison - mp3
As the tower progresses downward, another cameraman captures what seems to be loads of small localized detonations. I showed this film to a person who couldn’t care less about the whole topic and asked him if he noticed anything strange. After the third time orso he noticed the flashes and smoke blowouts: “Ah, those...hmmm...looks like explosives...yeah...guess they are explosives...and those white plumes up there also seem a bit strange” which, as I aspected, was followed by: “but I don’t really care”. But I guess that other people besides ‘nutballs’ can see seemingly unexplainable things too.P.S. It is possible you won’t see this alongside every corner.
What follows is a shot from the exact opposite side of the building:
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/march2005/100305strategicexplosives.htm
Posted by brian28 on Oct 13, 2005 at 8:37 AM Rumseld and Myers forced to shuffle uncomfortably and fumble for words as McKinney gets in their face about three issues seldom mentioned in official circles.
From a reader: Here is a Video of Representative Cynthia McKinney’s Exchange on the House Hearing on FY06 Dept. of DefenseBudget, March 11th, 2005.
Watch how McKinney asks questions about Dyncorp slave rings, the 3 trillion missing from the pentagon and the 911 wargames.
Notice the faces Rumsfeld, Myers, Jones, Hunter and others make!!
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/240305mckinneygrills.htm
Posted by brian28 on Oct 13, 2005 at 8:54 AM ........ even though this thread seems to be long silent I will post this article about a recent
that indicates the majority of Iraqis are not in favor of the occupation.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 24, 2005 at 9:02 PM .. and if they were before… they are not now ... so it would seem.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 26, 2005 at 12:35 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Rep. Barbara Lee
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
